This is an Unofficial Bath City FC Forum. Bath City FC have asked us to point out that it is in no way responsible for the content of this forum, and that any views expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions or policies of Bath City FC.

Jon_BOA wrote: The plastic pitch was always, always* going to be laid, I just put in the motion to at least force the debate, and give myself the cop out of "at least I tried to keep grass".

I am sorry, Jon, but that seems to suggest that the issue was always going to be forced through 'from the top' and that just wasn't and still isn't the case. The 3G can still be voted out by the members and, even if it is an uncomfortable decision, it will have to be stood by. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there on Thursday but, as I understand it, there is still room for the 3G to be voted out democratically. I am not saying that it should be or not but I am saying that it isn't a foregone conclusion.[/quote]

Last edited by Marc Monitor on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

Marc Monitor

Posts : 1619Join date : 2014-02-20Age : 52Location : Within the sight of Twerton Park floodlights (Well, at the end of my street)

stillmanjunior wrote:Just a quick one re streaming it on radio, apologies if anyone was unaware we were doing this but we didn’t want to advertise until late on as we thought it’d effect numbers turning up.

Thanks to Michael for setting all that up. The audio was better than I expected and a few people posed questions online, which is good.

Is there a "listen again" option?

Marc Monitor

Posts : 1619Join date : 2014-02-20Age : 52Location : Within the sight of Twerton Park floodlights (Well, at the end of my street)

the demon headmaster wrote:I hope this debate manages to avoid the pitfalls of a recent terrible referendum. Can people put their emotions aside for a change and can both sides muster their arguments with evidence and facts? This needs to be settled by reason. Feelings will eventually adjust to new realities either way, but if they get in the way of good decision-making we'll all lose out.

Well said - and this applies to both sides

the demon headmaster wrote:Can someone explain what the mechanism for making the final decision will be? Will it be a vote by shareholders? Will it be carried by a simple majority? When is such a vote likely to take place? I did listen to some of the contributions via BCIR (thank you), but I didn't hear these details discussed.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the Society, but according to the motion passed at the recent IGM, Society members will have to approve any change to an artificial surface. ("Society members" includes all community shareholders who are up to date with their £5 annual subs, plus anyone else who has simply joined the Society). The motion did not specify whether this would be by simple majority, although I think it would be safe to assume that it would, in the absence of any other threshold being specified. An EGM will be called in order for this vote to happen.

I'm not sure whether there would also have to be a 75% vote by the shareholders of Bath City FC Ltd, as there would be in the case of a ground move or the club being sold - I think probably not.

It will be interesting to see what the wording of the vote put to Society members will be. It seems clear that we are not going to be presented with a fully costed plan with timings, partners and funding sources set out (which is fair enough, as the board don't want to waste time researching and negotiating that if the majority of members are opposed to 3G in principle), so the vote would really be about asserting or removing any in-principle objections to 3G.

The arguments about whether or not we could use the ground while the work is taking place are a bit irrelevant if the pitch is going to moved or levelled, or at least rendered unusable for a period of time.

The hope would be that the 3G installation or levelling of the grass pitch would be done during the close season. Obviously the re-development will take a lot longer and would be the reason why we might need to move away.

Thanks Oliver. This makes me look very out of the loop, but as a shareholder I believe I am also automatically a Society member, but I have paid no subs, not been asked for any, nor received any document to my knowledge saying what my shareholder stake is. No doubt such information could be found at the bottom of the very large pile of papers for 'filing' in the study, but just in case it's not me, could you confirm that I should have received such notifications?

Appreciate that Oliver is not writing as a Society spokesman but is there some clarification of who is eligible to vote. Can someone simply join the Society and pay a yearly membership fee (£5?) and then vote on important matters such as the pitch debate?Surely only those who have made an investment in the Society should be allowed to vote.

I play on an artificial pitch every week and to be honest I much prefer playing on that than I would our pitch in its current state. Some areas are as though the horse of the year show has been performed on it - and of course our pitch is better than most.

Of course one thing that no one mentions are the modern balls. They have changed the game substantially and yet have been accepted without a murmer. They bounce far more than previous balls even on grass and they move around more in the air.

I don't like the modern ball, too light, and it moves around like it is in a pinball machine; will it move quicker and bounce higher on an artificial pitch? I haven't seen a game on an artificial pitch except for one, the supporters teams at Odd Down and that was ok, so remain open-minded.

the demon headmaster wrote:Thanks Oliver. This makes me look very out of the loop, but as a shareholder I believe I am also automatically a Society member, but I have paid no subs, not been asked for any, nor received any document to my knowledge saying what my shareholder stake is. No doubt such information could be found at the bottom of the very large pile of papers for 'filing' in the study, but just in case it's not me, could you confirm that I should have received such notifications?

Do you mean a community shareholder, i.e. you bought community shares during the 2016 Big Bath City Bid? Yes, that would make you a Society member. If you bought £250 of shares, you should have been asked to pay a £5 sub last autumn. £500 entitles you to 2 years of membership, so if you bought £500 of shares, you won't get chased for your fiver until this autumn, and so on.

You should have received a community shares certificate - please get in touch with the Society secretary at bathcitysocietycommittee@gmail.com if that's not the case (I definitely signed one for everyone on the register when I was secretary, perhaps we had the wrong address or it got lost in the post!!)

Peter Newman wrote:Appreciate that Oliver is not writing as a Society spokesman but is there some clarification of who is eligible to vote. Can someone simply join the Society and pay a yearly membership fee (£5?) and then vote on important matters such as the pitch debate?Surely only those who have made an investment in the Society should be allowed to vote.

Thanks for raising this, it's a really important point.

To this day, ANYONE can join the Society and vote, put forward motions, stand for office etc, in line with the "one member, one vote" principle. This is a key element of the co-op / community benefit society model, as it keeps the door open to maximum democratic engagement and participation from supporters and the community.

If you haven't bought community shares it will actually cost you £24/year or £2/month rather than £5/year, but membership remains open to everyone, on a one member, one vote basis. You can join here: https://www.bathcitysociety.org/join-us.html

Thanks for the information Oliver.At the moment the Society with just over 50% of the total shareholding can dictate what happens to the Club even if all other shareholders are opposed to a particular course of action. What is worrying is that the Society block vote could itself have been decided by being supported by just over 50% of its own membership. So, in reality, an action could be taken that only has support of perhaps 30% of overall shareholders/Society membership. In a worst case scenario when a Society vote is close the result could even have been decided by the way the £24 a year members had voted.

Peter Newman wrote:Thanks for the information Oliver.At the moment the Society with just over 50% of the total shareholding can dictate what happens to the Club even if all other shareholders are opposed to a particular course of action. What is worrying is that the Society block vote could itself have been decided by being supported by just over 50% of its own membership. So, in reality, an action could be taken that only has support of perhaps 30% of overall shareholders/Society membership. In a worst case scenario when a Society vote is close the result could even have been decided by the way the £24 a year members had voted.

Yes, as in any limited company structure, the majority shareholder can dictate what happens to the minority shareholders, within the rules set out by the articles of association.

When the majority shareholder is a democratic organisation, then yes, in theory a "minority" could impose its will on the majority - but bear in mind that many minority shareholders in Bath City FC Ltd are also Society members, so you are not quite comparing like with like. (And if I may say so, they get a lot more democratic power and influence from their Society membership then they would ever get from their minority shareholding.)

I don't accept that having a close vote decided by £24/year members is any worse of a scenario. There are no second class members in community benefit societies and the Society should be at great pains to make this clear. This was never about "invest £250 to make sure you get *your* vote". It was clearly about "invest £250 to make sure that supporters and the community get a vote, now and in the future".

This is only a worst case scenario if you believe that influence over the club's future should be proportional to how much money you've invested, which is completely against the rules and ethos of the Society, the Bid and the supporters trust movement.

Again, thank you for raising this! It's important that supporters realise this.

A vote is essential. What is also essential is an explanation of the maths. If a plastic pitch costs £600k, quoted somewhere, and has a life of say 5 years, then even ignoring interest payments etc we need £120k extra revenue to pay for it... A big ask i would say. Ok the numbers I've used may be slightly out but it gives the idea. I couldn't make the last meeting but much as i applaud the new regime i still get that sense of not being allowed to see the real numbers. Even when part of a working group. Would love to be part of that change though.

Dodgycarpet wrote:A vote is essential. What is also essential is an explanation of the maths. If a plastic pitch costs £600k, quoted somewhere, and has a life of say 5 years, then even ignoring interest payments etc we need £120k extra revenue to pay for it... A big ask i would say. Ok the numbers I've used may be slightly out but it gives the idea. I couldn't make the last meeting but much as i applaud the new regime i still get that sense of not being allowed to see the real numbers. Even when part of a working group. Would love to be part of that change though.

It was confirmed during the Q&A that the club wouldn't borrow to pay for it... I guess it would be a combination of grants and capital receipts from the redevelopment.

Have you seen the feasibility study on the Society website? It gives a pretty good breakdown of the projected numbers.

"Can someone explain what the mechanism for making the final decision will be? Will it be a vote by shareholders? Will it be carried by a simple majority? When is such a vote likely to take place? I did listen to some of the contributions via BCIR (thank you), but I didn't hear these details discussed."

I will need to verify the following with the constitution but this is the current thinking re. the proposed vote (made possible by the motion at the January IGM btw). The Society Committee will meet this Thursday to propose a date for the vote. I understand that it needs to be done as an EGM and therefore, there will be a minimum of 2 weeks notice. All Society members are eligible to vote (one vote each) and it will be possible to vote on-line or via post as well as at the EGM. I understand that the outcome will be determined by a simple majority. Apologies for not explaining all this on the night.

Dodgycarpet wrote:A vote is essential. What is also essential is an explanation of the maths. If a plastic pitch costs £600k, quoted somewhere, and has a life of say 5 years, then even ignoring interest payments etc we need £120k extra revenue to pay for it... A big ask i would say. Ok the numbers I've used may be slightly out but it gives the idea. I couldn't make the last meeting but much as i applaud the new regime i still get that sense of not being allowed to see the real numbers. Even when part of a working group. Would love to be part of that change though.

This is how it was explained to me and hopefully I have understood correctly. Only the top carpet needs to be relaid and that costs £250,000. So the figures quoted in the report assume that you have to take £50,000 out each year to pay for a new carpet at the end of year 5. The £60,000 profit is on top of this. So takings would actually be circa £120,000 to pay for the pitch and other outgoings and profit. This is on a usage I believe of 35 hours a week.